veronica_lodge
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by veronica_lodge
-
-
<p>If one is on the goal line of LSU and there are 6 foot high players on every 10 yard lines to the Arkansas goal line the farthest one away appears the smallest. The chap at the Arkansas goal line is 100 yards away. The chap at the 50 yard line is of course 50 yards away and appears twice as big. The player at the LSU 10 yard line is 10 yards away and "appears" 10 times as big as the chap at the Arkansas goal that is 100 yards away. One's camera, shoe color, or beliefs do not change this basic geometry of perspective. Maybe some photographers cannot understand "ratios" thus they believe focal length changes perspective? :) Sadly this was once taught in art in grade school.</p>
-
<p>As a company Kodak's stock stinks loosing over 4 bucks per share. Its share price was better 50 years ago. It has dropped more than 5X in the last year. Major Kodak stockholders want the poison pill reversed, so Kodaks value can be released. If cut up many films will be junked so watch out.</p>
-
<p>Maybe folks get confused because few took drawing, or read older books on photography.</p>
<p>The concept of perspective and the concept of DOF are different and should be learned without confusing the two subjects.<br>
One can shoot the same scene from the same spot with all the different cameras in the world and the perspective is EXACTLY the same.</p>
<p>If one sits in row 34; seat W one gets the same view of the football field too. Lenses and sensors do not cause compression, your location does to the subject.</p>
<p>It is basic ratios; how far object A and object B are to the viewing point. If two men are both 6 feet tall; the man twice as far away covers one half the arc angle.</p>
-
<p>Considering the decade's worth of Photo.net threads I have read; the belief that focal length causes perspective is actually quite common. The average poster believes that focal length causes perspective changes and the trend is worse is a dumbing down trend</p>
-
<p>If you shoot with from the SAME EXACT location then the perspective is already defined. Thus focal length; color of camera or moon phase do not matter. This was well known 10,000 years ago by most hunters, but somehow many many modern folks like to tie perspective to goofy parameters like focal length. Eons ago the lay caveman did this too. The dumber ones lied perspective to spear size. If you shoot from the SAME EXACT LOCATION the perspective is the same, Thus with a cellphone one has the same perspective as a 8x10 view camera. The cell phone has a focal length of 1 to 2 mm; the 8x10 view camera has lens of 200 to 400mm. Sadly the lay masses equate perspective to focal length, but fail to fathom that THEY MOVE the camera.</p>
-
<p>Running a restaurant involves a good shrewd manager to survive. They are wise to shop around and consider costs. They really search for low costs on every item they buy since the restaurant business is tough and many die off. There really is no way to say what is a proper price. Folks on this board seem to buy cameras on line to skirt local sales taxes but then whine when another business wants lower costs for your images.</p>
<p>If you already shot the images anyway would folks here:<br>
accept 50 bucks per image or say no and get nothing and feel proud they got nothing but upheld standards?</p>
<p>There are no rigid laws and rules with pricing, it is a life long adventure that requires mistakes.<br>
The rules about doing a new shoot and selling stuff that has already been shot can be different. One has settup and the other has little</p>
-
<p>Consumer flatbeds with time cane have a lessor contrast. The scan glass gets dirty and fogged on the inside surface and thus contrast drops. Cleaning the glass can radically boost contrast.</p>
-
<p>If this issue was about car A versus car B one would actually drive both and see if the lessor car does the required job.Maybe you are just driving to work on a bogged freeway and the max speed one can go is 30 MPH.<br>
If this question was about selling the Blad and buying a yashica 124 tlr one could shoot with both and still make fine 8x10's too.</p>
<p>Making a 8x10" print from MF is not such a massive requirement<br>
The Nikon 9000 allows a larger enlargement than a flatbed. The question mentions MF and the Blad and a 8x10 thus the enlargement is defined.<br>
A print only supports say 7 line pairs per mm maximum. Thus with a 4X enlargement one only needs 28 best case. Even a 10 year old Epson 2400 class flatbed reaches this.<br>
Thus the question is really do you sell the better tool, or use it if one needs enlargements beyond 4x, or do you farm out the few items that actually require a better scan?</p>
-
<p>Benny's specs are a 8x10 " print maximum.</p>
<p>This firmly boxes in the enlargement to say 5X.</p>
<p>A modern flatbed reaches this goal and thus a Epson 9000 adds no extra details and thus is overkill, ie a waste of money. Since most here do not worry about the cost of tools this waste is acceptable.</p>
<p>If this was a commercial tool for a professional application, the extra cost of a Nikon 9000 would radically drop the return on investment and might get one terminated for cause.<br>
The practical thing is to just buy a used 200 buck scanner and see if it works good enough and decide for oneself.<br>
A 4X to 5X enlargement is in the range of ease for a modern consumer flatbed, thus a Nikon 9000 adds no extra details but just ties up a few extra grand.</p>
<p>A good used Nikon 9000 will fetch 2500 bucks</p>
-
<p>Phase One had a 50 megapixel 4x5 scan back 12 years ago. It scans a 7x10cm area and the effective sensor/bar pitch is so large that a 1950's lens often is overkill.</p>
-
<p>Having a Nikon 9000 and a Hasselblad is a great combo.<br>
If one then goes to a flatbed, one truncates the higher end details. A consumer Epson flatbed picks up less details than a Nikon 9000 film scanner.<br>
If you are just shooting for the web or doing simple 4X enlargements then *most* folks will not see any benefit of a Nikon 9000.<br>
If you do larger prints greater than 4x then the flatbed is often the limit. ie you might as well sell that Hasselblad and use a 3 element Yashica TLR and your flatbed.</p>
<p>Some of us use both Epson flatbeds and our Nikon 9000 too. The flatbed often is faster and "good enough" for many applications. For critical stuff here I use the Nikon 9000 and it clearly pulls out way more details.<br>
Like any tool you should do experimenting and see what YOU need and not another.</p>
-
<p>Kodak's research in sensors goes back probably 1/2 century. Kodak had a digital storage skunk works lab in San Diego in the 1970's and 1980's that worked on sensors. Kodak presented many papers at SPIE conferences on sensors, back before Apple even shipped its first computer. In sensors Kodak had their sensor in their late 1980's commercial 35mm slide scanner. I mention all this so some might know that sensors are an old Kodak idea and product.<br>
The tale of Kodak someday making money in digital photography is several decades old and many CEO's old. The tale is like a dis-functional couple. ie one is thrifty film and the other is a spender ie digital. Each new CEO funnels money from the film portion to support a drunk lossy digital part.<br>
If one has owned or followed Kodak stock the tale of Kodak someday breaking even in digital is very tired and real old. Kodak had digital cameras 20 years ago, they are NOT a newcomer to digital at all.<br>
The current trend by younger folks is to not print at all,<br>
An entire generation has never used film and never will.<br>
The old farts at Kodak ignored the changing market and grew stupid and thus are "selling off the crown jewels to pay the light bill"-WSJ<br>
Die hard film photographers think it is no big deal that Kodak sells no film to Walmart, the largest retailer in the USA.<br>
Sadly the folks I know who have bought Kodak inkjet printers recently have had many problems with them.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Going back in time one can remember when a local Kmart or Walgreens had 200 speed Ektachrome. Today the largest retailer in the USA does not even carry any Kodak film, ie the big W.. Remember when Jane and Joe average could buy Kodak film for their camera in Anywhere USA?. Remember when every tiny drug store had rolls of Kodachrome, TRI-X, or movie film? Remember when the neighbors showed you a boring slide show of their trip out West on US 66 in their new 1966 Ford Falcon wagon? Today the average person does not even know what a slide is and many younger folks have never used a film camera. The decline in film usage marches on. Film is a perishable product that requires a giant fixed capital manufacturing line to maintain. Once the sales drop too much the plug has to be pulled. Kodak stock really is the same price as it was when every tiny drug store in Anywhere USA had Verichrome in 620 rolls. Kodak is "selling the homes silverware to keep the lights on", ie selling its patents as a last gap way of not dying. Your favorite Kodak films might already been halted and just being slit from master rolls and sheets.</p>
-
<p>Rick. Here is the 2x2 roll 12 shot 120 film back. It is on the 1946 2x3 camera just like yours with same 101mm Ektar. If you pick up the camera by the roll film back and hold the camera face down then maybe one might get a light leak.If the slide is in place then there would be no leak. Otherwise the stock springs in the photo below from 1946 work well. My older brother bought this camera used in the 1960's from Olden Camera. These are the springs that were on the camera then. With a back like this you focus with the rangefinder or meter/feet scale. The 101mm is well corrected for colour film too. I am confused as why you want to make other springs. On this camera they have worked now for at least 4 decades. The two springs force the 2x2 Graphic back against the cameras back. Cheers<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11909991-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>
-
<p>Rick</p>
<p>RE : I've also picked up a "23" roll film holder for this camera, but I need to fabricate two little L-shaped clamps to fix it to the spring-back (or figure out another way to attach it, or get a graflok back).</p>
<p>The 2x3 Speed Graphic here has a serial number of 371XXX with a 1946 101mm F4.5 Ektar; code EO.</p>
<p>The 2x2, 2x3 and 6x7 cm roll backs just attach with the spring steel metal brackets you show in your images.<br /> You attach the roll film back then place the spring brackets on . The ends of the clamps apply pressure to force the roll back against the camera. Yo just screw the brackets on with the 2 wood screws. You already have the clamps. They are shown in your images. The roll holder is held on the camera with the clamps you already have. Thus there is nothing to fabricate. All you need is a screwdriver.<br>
<br /> Cheers<br>
<br /> Like the Wizard Of Oz, just click your heels. You already have the brackets</p>
<p>The photos of you camera's back and spring brackets are the same as mine that has a 2x2 roll back on it right now.</p>
-
<p>Drum scanning of 4x5 is over 1/4 century old. A drum scan always delivers a high quality scan. They have always had a decent cost since there is much labour and the hardware is high in cost too.<br>
Dynamic range and colours are better with a drum scan.<br>
<br /> A flatbed can be good enough for many applications. One needs to figure out what purpose that scan is for. Getting a high end drum 4x5 scans for 16x20's may not be not be any better than a flatbed scan. Viewing distance matters too.</p>
-
<p>The original working power supply in a 1985 IBM XT PC here is "made in China", that is 1/4 century ago.</p>
<p>There are very high quality and moderate and low quality "stuff" "made in China". The USA has great and poorly made "stuff" too.</p>
<p>Nikon made P&S cameras in China over 20 years ago that are excellent in quality.</p>
<p>Unless one looks at the QA involved in a product, worrying about the country of origin is silly.</p>
<p>In Batteries here I have some "made in China" mystery brand AA NiMH batteries that still work well, and they came bundled with an Olympus Digital camera from 10 years ago. They have the least self discharge of any AA NiMH's I own. With a TWO sets four of "made in USA" Energizer ACCU Rechargeable AA NiMH's , they self discharge an order of magnitude quicker. They also have leakage at the positive terminals and are only 3 years old. Thus the made in USA 3 year old ones are garbage batteries compared to the great made in China fine quality batterys that are 10 years old. The USA ones probably have an impure separator and brew of chemicals, thus bad quality control. In a spare digital Olympus I bought; I got a second set of these mystery brand made in China AA NiMH batteries, and they too are great with little self discharge. To use the made in USA NIMH's, I have to charge them the day before usage to avoid them being dead 5 days later. The made in China AA's can be charged and used 2 to 4 weeks later with little loss in capacity. The made in USA Energizers AA's here are a poor joke, bad USA made product.</p>
<p>About everything one buys today is made in China, since labor rates are lower. Your Imac, Iphone, memory cards, printers, PC are usually made there.</p>
-
<p>Hello. I find this question interesting as a new concern<br /> Your question was more about Nikon dslr than film stuff.<br /> <br /> With old Nikon 35mm Point and Shoot cameras; they were made in Japan, mainland China , Taiwan ROC, and Malaysia etc.</p>
<p>It is common to see the Nikon P&S product at first made in Japan; then another country to drop the labor costs as the product matures.</p>
<p>A Nikon Nice Touch 3 with 31mm lens here is made in Malaysia.<br>
A Nikon One Touch with a 35mm F2.8 is made in Japan.<br /> Another Nikon One Touch with 35mm F2.8 was made in China.<br /> A Nikon One Touch 4 AF with 29mm F4.5 is marked made in Taiwan ROC.</p>
<p>Nikon L35AF with 35mm F2.8 here is made in Japan; another is made in China. The first one I bought my parents was made in Japan; a later spare of the same model says made in China. These are 1980's Nikon cameras. The Nikon L35AF has a sharp enough lens for great Kodachrome slides.</p>
<p>With one Olympus Digital P&S I like to use; I have the same model with the bottom stamped made in Japan; Indonesia and Korea. All the parts can interchange. In Kodak 35mm P&S; the same Star series models were made in Hong Kong and also "Taiwan R O C".</p>
<p>The same model is often made in different countries as the product matures. Thus later model Nikon L35AF's are made in China.</p>
<p>In the lower end P&S arena; this changing the country during production seems to be more common.</p>
<p>It is better to focus on what the quality of the Nikon or other product is; than were it was made. China holds the bulk of the World's rare earth magnet material; thus with a modern high tech product you are not going to be able to buy a product with materials NOT made in China.<br /> The Nikon Kit zooms and common 50mm lenses have been made in China for a long time.<br /> Cheers.</p>
-
-
Da Yupiter-3 has serials that mean the year.. Two digits are the year of build. The factory mark also shown on barrel. ZOMZ in Zagorsk and the "shihkabbb logo factory" ZOMZ is da Zagorsk Optick Mechanical Factory. Thread ist 40,5mm fur filter. Lens is like Sonnar; carl zeiss 5cm F1.5. cheers V.L<BR><BR><BR><BR><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1507566-lg.jpg">
-
-
Das Yupiter,3 ist in klar aluminum und schwarz; Nein Messing (brass)....<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1507566&size=lg">
-
Nikon F Value?
in Nikon
Posted